The Second Apprenticeship

Introduction

Organizations love promoting experts.

It makes intuitive sense. The engineer who designed the breakthrough product becomes the engineering manager. The scientist who built the most successful laboratory becomes department chair. The professor with the strongest research portfolio becomes dean. The physician with the broadest clinical, educational, and scholarly accomplishments becomes residency director or department chief.

After all, who better to lead the work than someone who has mastered it?

Sometimes that works remarkably well. More often, it prompts an interesting question: Why are we still surprised when technical experts struggle with leadership?

This is not unique to medicine. I have watched the same transition play out among engineers, entrepreneurs, military officers, researchers, software developers, and academics. The details differ, but the pattern is remarkably consistent. People become exceptionally good at doing difficult work. That excellence earns them the opportunity to lead. Then they discover that the work they are now responsible for is fundamentally different from the work that got them there.

That is not a failure of intelligence, a failure of effort, or proof that someone is “unsuited to leadership.”

It is a developmental transition—and one that can be managed more successfully when it is recognized and approached intentionally.

---

Education vs Development

In Leadership by Design, I argued that healthcare often treats physician leadership as primarily a knowledge problem when it is more accurately understood as a developmental one. Physicians are frequently sent to courses on finance, operations, budgeting, or organizational structure. Those are worthwhile subjects. Every physician executive should become conversant in them.

But education and development answer different questions.

Education asks, What do I need to know?

Development asks, How do I apply what I know in a fundamentally different environment?

That distinction extends well beyond healthcare.

Technical professions have always understood the importance of apprenticeship. None of us becomes an expert alone. Whether our mentors stood beside us in the operating room, supervised our research, reviewed our manuscripts, challenged our thinking, or lived centuries ago through the work they left behind, every expert stands on someone else’s shoulders.

We understand how to mentor people into technical competence—and beyond that, into excellence and mastery.

We are far less intentional about mentoring people through the opportunities that arise because of that expertise and mastery.

---

A Leadership Epiphany

For most of my career, I would have told you I understood leadership.

Looking back, I understood expertise.

Those are not the same thing.

I was selected to lead a residency program for reasons that, at least on paper, made perfect sense. I had accumulated the kinds of accomplishments academic medicine rewards: strong board scores, military recognition, deployed experience, teaching awards, publications, funded research, and fellowship in multiple professional societies. I had written simulation curricula, developed educational cases, and built a reputation as someone who could solve difficult problems across clinical care, education, research, and simulation.

By almost any traditional measure, I was exceptionally well prepared.

Despite those CV bullets as evidence of preparation, it ended badly.

Not because I lacked knowledge, but because I misunderstood what leadership required.

Without realizing it, I carried an assumption that many organizations quietly reinforce: if expertise earned the opportunity to lead, then demonstrating expertise would naturally make me effective as a leader.

The assumption could not have been more wrong. Expertise was absolutely necessary, but it was not sufficient.

Technical authority is built on a simple proposition:

I know.

People trust your judgment because you have demonstrated competence over years of disciplined work. That authority is real, and it deserves respect. Organizations, patients, students, and colleagues all need experts to navigate the day-to-day.

Leadership gains respect from a fundamentally different proposition:

I create the conditions for the best solution to emerge—and for that solution to become reality.

Those two responsibilities are inseparable.

A room full of experts may identify several workable answers and agree on which one is best. But agreement is not implementation, and consensus is not execution. Until coordinated action follows, nothing has changed.

Leadership is not demonstrated by the leader arriving at the best answer. It is demonstrated when the people being led help discover the answer, commit to it, and coordinate their efforts to make it real.

Clinical practice often rewards decisiveness because patients cannot wait while we endlessly deliberate. Good judgment may mean gathering enough information, making the best decision possible, communicating clearly, and accepting responsibility for the outcome.

Leadership still requires decisiveness, but many of the problems leaders inherit are too broad, too ambiguous, and too dependent on multiple disciplines for any one person’s expertise to be enough.

The job changes.

You stop solving problems with your expertise and begin facilitating other people as they solve problems through their coordinated expertise.

That coordination does not end once the best idea has been identified.

Being right without creating action is still organizational failure.

That sounds obvious on the page. Living it is something else entirely.

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to learn from the experience and bounce back. Years later, I found myself helping lead the development of a large virtual health initiative during the pandemic. The team included entrepreneurs, software developers, hardware innovators, simulation experts, operational leaders, clinicians, and specialists whose experience far exceeded my own in their respective domains.

For the first time in my professional life, I was surrounded by people who routinely knew things I did not.

My expertise had not become obsolete. The problem had simply become larger than any one person’s expertise.

The unexpected result of absolutely not being the smartest person in the room?

I became a better leader.

Ironically, I was more effective leading a project in which my own expertise represented only one piece of the puzzle than I had been leading a residency program where I genuinely knew more than almost everyone else about nearly every aspect of the work.

Some of those experts occasionally fell into the same trap I once had. Because they were unquestionably expert in one domain, they unconsciously assumed their expertise extended into everyone else’s.

---

The Personal Epiphany

Watching those moments was like being hit with a frying pan. I gained a little empathy for the teams I had previously led.

I could almost hear a good friend’s question echoing in my head:

Do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective?

Being right had never been the whole job. It had simply been the part of the job I understood best.

Leadership required something I had not yet learned: creating an environment where other people’s expertise could shape better decisions than mine ever could alone.

Then I discovered there was another step.

Even after the team identifies the best course of action, leadership is not finished.

Someone still has to create clarity, align effort, remove obstacles, and help people commit to the work.

Leadership is not creating the best solution and then never advancing it in the real world. That is just a point somewhere between paralysis by analysis—where no solution is ever selected—and actual action. We call it “planning to plan.” (More on that later in the series.)

The Mentorship Epiphany

That perspective also changed how I think about mentorship.

I have been extraordinarily fortunate in my mentors. They taught me medicine. They taught me research. They taught me teaching. They taught me scholarship. They opened doors I could never have opened by myself, challenged me when I needed challenging, and invested in my development as a physician and academic.

I remain deeply grateful for them.

Looking back, I do not think the issue was whether my mentors were right when they gave me feedback.

They often were.

The problem was that the feedback was not particularly effective.

The underlying assumption was that I had a knowledge problem—as though understanding what leadership looked like would naturally translate into practicing it well.

But the transition I was struggling with was not primarily about knowing more.

It was about learning to apply what I already knew in a fundamentally different environment.

That is not something most of us are explicitly taught.

And it is not something most professions have built a clear apprenticeship around.

Most technical disciplines have built sophisticated systems for developing expertise. We know how to teach people to become outstanding clinicians, engineers, scientists, researchers, or educators.

We are less deliberate about preparing those same people for the day when success depends less on demonstrating expertise than on cultivating and coordinating it in others.

---

Closing

Promotion is often treated as the finish line.

In reality, it marks the beginning of a second apprenticeship.

One that asks different questions.

Not, How do I become better at the work?

But, How do I help a group of exceptional people accomplish what none of us could achieve alone?

That transition is not unique to physicians, healthcare, or even STEM professions.

It appears wherever technical mastery becomes the price of admission to leadership.

Recognizing that pattern changes the question organizations should ask.

Instead of wondering why so many accomplished experts struggle after promotion, perhaps we should ask whether we ever prepared them for the work promotion actually gave them.

Because once we understand leadership as a different kind of apprenticeship, another question naturally follows.

What happens when the problems themselves change—when expertise is no longer enough because there is no established solution waiting to be applied?

That is where we will go next.